The law, which proponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. Opponents have called it an open invitation for harassment and discrimination against Hispanics regardless of their citizenship status.

Basically, for those of you who haven't heard about this, it's now legal to ask 'suspected illegal immigrants' for their Papers, Please!

Quote

It requires police officers, “when practicable,” to detain people they reasonably suspect are in the country without authorization and to verify their status with federal officials, unless doing so would hinder an investigation or emergency medical treatment.

Racial profiling is now legal in Arizona, for all intents and purposes.

How is this different from police asking people for their ID? Even when doing nothing wrong, I've been asked, "Can I see some ID, please?". It's kinda their job to know who they're dealing with and that you are who you say you are.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." -4th Amendment.

This is why you do not run a massively deceptive news organization as a propaganda arm for your party. You will start to believe your own bullshit, aim a loaded canon at your foot under the misguided impression that it is your opponent, and then gleefully pull the trigger.

It's so patently absurd I have a hard time finding offense. The Latino vote was going to be one of the major enthusiasm drags for democrats this election. This is almost as brilliant as opposing financial reform by demanding backroom dealing.

How is this different from police asking people for their ID? Even when doing nothing wrong, I've been asked, "Can I see some ID, please?". It's kinda their job to know who they're dealing with and that you are who you say you are.

Stop and identify is perfectly legal. "Can I see your birth certificate?"

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." -4th Amendment.

That isn't actually an answer. If you want to argue 4th Amendment, fine, but then you can argue that the 4th Amendment doesn't cover illegal immigrants.

Or, if you want, you can argue that the police asking for your ID is also against the 4th Amendment.

And, by the way, what does 'unreasonable' mean? What if you're anti-immigrant? Do people who are breaking the law really have any rights?

Trieste, the Constitution is VERY deliberate about identifying "People" (i.e.: Anyone with a pulse, regardless of nationality) and "Citizens". The 4th amendment explicitly talks about People, not Citizens.

I would say unreasonable would be if you're asked to prove ID when you're not doing anything illegal. Taking pedestrians off the street, asking to see their papers... Doesn't that sound a bit familiar to you?

Hell, I agree with you Doomsday that asking for papers without any reasonable cause, example being suspicious looking drifters near a crime scene. but other successful democracies have similar standards on freedom and will not have an issues with otherwise random inspections. For example, in Sweden, random alcohol tests can be made on drivers without any real reason.

Though, what separates the otherwise random check-ups with what is instituted in Arizona, is that one particular ethnicity is targeted. On principle, that is very disturbing from a civic liberty stand-point.

I would say unreasonable would be if you're asked to prove ID when you're not doing anything illegal. Taking pedestrians off the street, asking to see their papers... Doesn't that sound a bit familiar to you?

Sure. It sounds like standard procedure on a train, or in other countries (as your own article even states) or any other place where you're supposed to go through an entry process to be there.

If you're courting Godwin's law, checking peoples' credential is no more exclusive to Nazis and dictators than human experimentation is. The difference is the execution and the intent.

Asking for your ID does not constitute a search. It has been state law in a number of states that it is illegal to be in a public place without ID. I have been stopped in public parks and asked to show ID before. It is not excessively burdensome nor is it a form of search.

That said I do agree that the constitution deals with our behavior towards all people, and that illegals possess a right against unreasonable search and seizure. The case of asking for your I'd is just not one.

Further, Veks is right. To be able to ask for your birth certificate is unreasonable. It is a primary, personal document that there can be no reasonable expectation of you carrying around.

These are merely my opinions on what has been said so far. I need to read up on the law itself before expressing a personal opinion on it.

And the thing is that I can say, "No" or, "I don't have it", just like I can say if I don't have my ID on me. And you know what, it leaves me open to detention by the police also.

My point is that this is not a huge extension of power like it's being made out to be.

Er, no. Stop and identify statutes require 1) specific suspicious elements for a crime and 2) identifying by name only passed the supreme court 5-4. Requiring said proof on your person has not been tested by the Supreme Court yet. In addition, the reasons for detainment need to be clear and specific. "Reasonable suspicion of being an illegal immigrant" opens up a can of worms and the bit about allowing local citizens to sue for what -they think- is insufficient enforcement only makes that problem worse.

My point is that this is not a huge extension of power like it's being made out to be.

lets say Jose Doe (a legal united states citizen) is suspected of being illegal because he happens to be dark skinned. He is asked for his 'documentation' and does not happen to have an ID on him (for what ever reason) so the local police can hall him in. who knows what might happen during such instances - resisting, brutality, a little friendly fire.

cute little white girls not carrying an ID might get a warning or ticket, Jose could get dead.

Hell, I agree with you Doomsday that asking for papers without any reasonable cause, example being suspicious looking drifters near a crime scene. but other successful democracies have similar standards on freedom and will not have an issues with otherwise random inspections. For example, in Sweden, random alcohol tests can be made on drivers without any real reason.

I seem to recall that cops set up random anti-drunk-driving stops in the States as well. They tend to be more prevalent around major holidays, like Independence Day or New Year's Eve.

I think that this is going to jet up the appeals court REALLY fast. I expect within a year at least a dozen or so cases to be pushed up the circuit courts. I cringe to think what damage will be done to people's livelihood, LIVES and families before this is done.

I somehow sense that Senator McCain will not get as much Latino support for his reelection this time around. (I think I saw an article with him supporting it last week)

In addition, the reasons for detainment need to be clear and specific. "Reasonable suspicion of being an illegal immigrant" opens up a can of worms and the bit about allowing local citizens to sue for what -they think- is insufficient enforcement only makes that problem worse.

Agree entirely. The changes as a whole are not remarkable. Some of them are even good (the anti-entrapment clauses). But the problem stems from the complete lack of oversight in passages like:

Quote

B. For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c).

'Reasonable suspicion' is a whole lot less defined than even 'probable cause'. A probable cause must be demonstrable, a 'reasonable suspicion' is merely any line of bullshit that you can rationalize. If a state wants to crack down on its enforcement of federal law that is perfectly fine, good even, but they should not use it as a cover for empowering their law enforcement beyond reason.

And local citizens should express their approval of their law enforcement through funding, elections, and political procedure. Not putting it in civil court. That's just bizarre.

The thing I don't like is that it will give racist cops an excuse to harass anyone who even just looks like they're Hispanic. I don't like to say bad things about cops, but they are human and therefore not perfect.

I think illegal immigration is a problem, but not as big as everyone makes it out to be. If you really think about it, they are this country's source of cheap labor. They do the jobs that citizens won't. There are people who won't work in a fast food joint because they believe it to be beneath them, which is bullshit, but what are you gonna do?

Also, people bitch that they don't pay taxes, well, set it up that they can pay taxes without fear of being deported. Some probably won't, but some might. After all, they're not horrible monsters, but rather human beings. They're here for a reason. They risk their lives to get here, so what they're running from must be pretty bad. Hell, maybe the answer even lies in making entering the country legally easier. Think of all the extra tax money.

I don't see any oproblem with this law. It's just a check on citizenship and isn't necessarily intrusive. Now before anyone can say it's racial profiling, it's NOT racial profiling. It is illegal profiling. There are more than just hispanics that are in this country illegally. There are Asians as well as people of African and European decent.

This law is an attempt to get under control the rampant illegal popuulation that the federal government is seriously falling down on. If the federal goverment will not do anything, then it is left to the states to enforce it and believe me, they will do that. This isn't a slam at legal immigrants, but at illegals. The Democrats and liberal future voters. Anyone that immediately screams 'RACISM!' is coming across to many people as 1, a racist themselves since that is the FIRST thing they scream on a bill/law they don;t like, and 2, someone not willing to do one bloody thing against illegal immigrants. Who by the fact they are illegal, are breaking the law.

Now can this law be abused? Of course it can. Any law can be abused so to automatically label one as racist right off the bat is rather stupid.